I quit AOPA this past Friday and here's why

[PPC1052]

I thought we were talking about whether there is a right to vote in the context of a discussion about voter ID, fees, etc., not whether a particular government official is subject to direct election by the voters.

It's the same issue. States don't have to let you vote. Period. It's just if they do, they can't do so in a way that is discriminatory.

 

[PPC1052]

They're not wrong. The electors are appointed by the State to represent the State. For those States who dictate how electors must vote, the elections are held by the State, ergo it's on the State to ensure the right to vote.

Lol. Of course the SCOTUS is not wrong. Every other branch has abdicated any responsibility to check its power to determine what the constitution says. By default, what they say is correct. Until they reverse themselves.

 

[mkosmo]

Lol. Of course the SCOTUS is not wrong. Every other branch has abdicated any responsibility to check its power to determine what the constitution says. By default, what they say is correct. Until they reverse themselves.

That's how it's supposed to be.

The purpose of the court is to interpret law. The legislature writes it, the executive makes it so. The others can't do the job of the judiciary for them -- all they can do is use their abilities in a check/balance fashion -- AS DESIGNED.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's the same issue. States don't have to let you vote. Period. It's just if they do, they can't do so in a way that is discriminatory.

Article I Section 2, and Amendment XVII say that members of Congress shall be elected by the people. I agree that this does not guarantee that "All individuals have the right to vote." However my comment was about the concept that "A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a 'right' in a fundamental sense...," which the Atlantic article attributed to some scholars and courts.

 

[PPC1052]

That's how it's supposed to be.

That's not spelled out in the constitution. Marbury v. Madison is the case where the Supreme Court claimed for itself the right to review the constitutionality of acts of congress. Nothing gives the SCOTUS the right to enforce its orders against the other branches of government. POTUS or congress could ignore it, and frankly should when the court oversteps its bounds. But, as I said, they have abdicated that important check.

 

[paflyer]

I don't ask for anything to be handed to me, but creating barriers to qualified voters is suppressio to appease a few people who dislike people of color and the poor.

Maybe the law should require everybody to get a new voter ID every year so everybody is equally burdened. That way you can go stand in line.

Hey Clippy, why don't you get a used school bus and go into Balmer on your own time and take the poor people of color to the DMV. Think of the public service you would provide.. Put your money where your mouth is. Get some of your like-mindless Party pals to take turns. "Make a difference."

Of course, folks like yourself would rather raise a stink than solve the "problem."

 

[denverpilot]

Well written post although I think AOPA is doing a good job.

For some bizarre reason pilots just love to hate AOPA. Not sure if they are aircraft owners or renters or what. Must be a guy thing or some bizarre side-effect of being anal...

Sometimes some articles come across incorrectly. To each his own regarding quitting for that reason.

It's a long way from thinking them not worthy of membership money and "hating" them.

I see a lot more people espousing the former than anything that indicates the latter.

When the Prez is going to pilot meetings simply stating that user fees are a done deal and to prep for it, they're not "doing a good job". He may be right, or not.

But you never admit defeat before the war is over if you're actually in the fight. That's plain stupid.

Unless he's giving all those speeches as a ruse and a trap to spring on his opponents, and frankly I don't think anyone at AOPA is that bright about war strategy.

AOPAs only possible winning position and strategy is to convince the Feds that the airlines just want their funding money. They're too small to beat either one head-on.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's not spelled out in the constitution. Marbury v. Madison is the case where the Supreme Court claimed for itself the right to review the constitutionality of acts of congress.

I don't know what rationale the Court used in that case, but it seems to me that if courts are going to apply the law in deciding cases that come before them, then they have to take into account the fact that the Constitution says that it, and federal laws made in pursuance thereof, are "the supreme law of the land." When a case involves a law that conflicts with the Constitution, then I would argue that said law was not made "in pursuance" of the Constitution, and is therefore not part of "the supreme law of the land."

Nothing gives the SCOTUS the right to enforce its orders against the other branches of government.

Maybe that's why the Supreme Court only gets involved when a case is brought before it, and doesn't preemptively declare laws unconstitutional without a case having been brought.

POTUS or congress could ignore it, and frankly should when the court oversteps its bounds. But, as I said, they have abdicated that important check.

If it became established that case decisions could simply be ignored, wouldn't that render the judicial power referred to in the Constitution as meaningless? If you want to talk about doing away with important checks, that would be it!

 

[mkosmo]

That's not spelled out in the constitution. Marbury v. Madison is the case where the Supreme Court claimed for itself the right to review the constitutionality of acts of congress. Nothing gives the SCOTUS the right to enforce its orders against the other branches of government. POTUS or congress could ignore it, and frankly should when the court oversteps its bounds. But, as I said, they have abdicated that important check.

Article III, Section 1... "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Section 2... "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

In the beginning, all branches had to lay their claim. But, that's not what Marbury v. Madison did. All it did was establish precedent for judicial review... as a result of a claim from a JP, not SCOTUS. The Judiciary Act of 1789 is what gives them the power you're complaining about... which CONGRESS wrote. The Constitution is a framework, not a POH. Somebody suing the government over an act of Congress is where SCOTUS comes in to play, as per the design of the Constitution. If all branches started just ignoring each other, we'd have something rather ineffective, don't you think?

 

[mkosmo]

I don't know what rationale the Court used in that case, but it seems to me that if courts are going to apply the law in deciding cases that come before them, then they have to take into account the fact that the Constitution says that it, and federal laws made in pursuance thereof, are "the supreme law of the land." When a case involves a law that conflicts with the Constitution, then I would argue that said law was not made "in pursuance" of the Constitution, and is therefore not part of "the supreme law of the land."

It didn't order Madison to hand over the documentation. In fact, the petition was denied on the grounds that the original jurisdiction was invalid as a result of the clause used to petition SCOTUS was unconstitutional itself. What it really did was clarify the separation of the executive and judiciary branches.

 

[Palmpilot]

... as a result of a claim from a JP, not SCOTUS....

What's a "JP"?

 

[mkosmo]

What's a "JP"?

Justice of the Peace. A local judge. He was a DC JP.

 

[Palmpilot]

Justice of the Peace. A local judge. He was a DC JP.

Thanks!

 

[PPC1052]

If it became established that case decisions could simply be ignored, wouldn't that render the judicial power referred to in the Constitution as meaningless? If you want to talk about doing away with important checks, that would be it!

The other branches are elected. They always stand to be checked by the voters. So if they abuse their ability to check the Supreme Court, they can be voted out of office in a few years.

 

[Norman]

REAL ID is an interesting one, but I can't think of a state that doesn't offer free (or damn near free) state IDs for low income persons. The fact of the matter is that they can't and won't refuse to issue a legal resident an identification card. The feds can and will refuse to allow a person to exercise their 2A rights.

Respectfully disagree. It is not so much the feds as it is the state governments that feel they have to control the unwashed masses. The states on both coasts are anti-gun while those in the heartland with the exception of Illinois, are pro concealed carry. Give some thought to which political party rules those states and you will find the answer. The elites who rule some of the progressive states will deny your right to self defense in a heartbeat. The states that believe in the constitution as written have different opinions.

 

[PPC1052]

Article III, Section 1... "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Section 2... "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

In the beginning, all branches had to lay their claim. But, that's not what Marbury v. Madison did. All it did was establish precedent for judicial review... as a result of a claim from a JP, not SCOTUS. The Judiciary Act of 1789 is what gives them the power you're complaining about... which CONGRESS wrote. The Constitution is a framework, not a POH. Somebody suing the government over an act of Congress is where SCOTUS comes in to play, as per the design of the Constitution. If all branches started just ignoring each other, we'd have something rather ineffective, don't you think?

Not sure what you are trying to say. I am not sure how this:

Marbury v. Madison is the case where the Supreme Court claimed for itself the right to review the constitutionality of acts of congress.

is meaningfully (at least in this context) different from:

All it did was establish precedent for judicial review

Also, the judiciary act is not what gave the SCOTUS the power that I am "complaining" about. (I am actually complaining about the other branches refusal to use their own checks to balance the SCOTUS). The Judiciary Act created inferior courts-- the district courts and courts of appeals--create the position of attorney general, and extended (or attempted to extend) SCOTUS jurisdiction to some areas not set forth in the constitution.

​

If all branches started just ignoring each other, we'd have something rather ineffective, don't you think?

If they did so with no check, then yes. But the voters can vote out unreasonable politicians that do so for no legitimate reason.

 

[mkosmo]

Respectfully disagree. It is not so much the feds as it is the state governments that feel they have to control the unwashed masses. The states on both coasts are anti-gun while those in the heartland with the exception of Illinois, are pro concealed carry. Give some thought to which political party rules those states and you will find the answer. The elites who rule some of the progressive states will deny your right to self defense in a heartbeat. The states that believe in the constitution as written have different opinions.

NICS gives them that ability. For folks who wind up deferred/denied, they have no cause for short-term recourse. Additionally, Federal law permits for reinstatement of firearms rights for some non-violent felons... yet the ATF hasn't funded the program in many years, effectively rendering it dead. Back to your point, I live in a great State for firearms rights, but I still can't carry even on the post office's parking lot despite it being legal an inch off-property! The Feds do stomp on our rights.

 

[PPC1052]

Justice of the Peace. A local judge. He was a DC JP.

Actually, no. He didn't quite make it. Adams appointed him, but the new secretary of state refused to seal the commission. As you noted above, the SCOTUS decided it did not have the power to issue mandamus to force the new secretary to do so because the Judiciary Act which supposedly gave the SCOTUS original jurisdiction was unconstitutional.

 

[Ghery]

Respectfully disagree. It is not so much the feds as it is the state governments that feel they have to control the unwashed masses. The states on both coasts are anti-gun while those in the heartland with the exception of Illinois, are pro concealed carry. Give some thought to which political party rules those states and you will find the answer. The elites who rule some of the progressive states will deny your right to self defense in a heartbeat. The states that believe in the constitution as written have different opinions.

Well, the state of Washington, while not perfect, isn't quite as bad. It is a "shall issue" state with respect to the Concealed Pistol License (CPL). They have 30 days from the date you apply to show that you have violated some law making you ineligible to hold a CPL. Failing that, they must issue it. My initial application took a whole week. My renewal wasn't quite so fast, they were slammed with a bunch of renewals. But, if I were in charge of such things most gun laws would go away. It's already a crime to commit murder, among other things. We don't need laws infringing on the rights protected (not granted) by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[azure]

Respectfully disagree. It is not so much the feds as it is the state governments that feel they have to control the unwashed masses. The states on both coasts are anti-gun while those in the heartland with the exception of Illinois, are pro concealed carry. Give some thought to which political party rules those states and you will find the answer. The elites who rule some of the progressive states will deny your right to self defense in a heartbeat. The states that believe in the constitution as written have different opinions.

This is getting WAY off the OP's topic and perilously close to politics, but... do you consider Vermont to be a heartland state? Vermont has unregulated concealed and open carry, sometimes called Vermont carry or constitutional carry. Vermont is in New England, so I think it's a lot closer to being a coastal state than a heartland one. It is also very left-leaning, in many ways progressive.

 

[rbridges]

I decided to let my membership lapse. I feel like they've spent nearly half the annual dues in postage trying to get me to renew. I've honestly received 10+ last chance mailings.

 

[Palmpilot]

I decided to let my membership lapse. I feel like they've spent nearly half the annual dues in postage trying to get me to renew. I've honestly received 10+ last chance mailings.

I have mine set up for auto-renew, so I don't get those mailings.

 

[Bill Watson]

I have mine set up for auto-renew, so I don't get those mailings.

FWIW the OP was on auto renew which is a good thing for any subscription. Saves marketing $$$ and keeps your inbox clear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[deonb]

It is really pretty interesting. I have NEVER met anyone in person at my airport who wasn't very friendly and interested in sharing or helping a fellow pilot. For some reason, you meet a group of people on this forum who are the complete opposite. Although, I would bet those same individuals wouldn't be so critical in person. There is something to be said for being able to hide behind a screen name on a online forum.

Ever been on Nextdoor?

It's a social media site where you know the name and address of everybody, and everybody lives within a few miles of each other. It's probably the least anonymous site you can ever get on, and yet, some of the discussions on there would put spinzone to shame.

There was also this study that showed that internet trolls are real life trolls as well:
https://www.theguardian.com/science.../25/internet-trolls-are-also-real-life-trolls


So unfortunately no - people don't just turn into ***holes when they get online. They're like that all the time.

I think the reason you don't see this translate into real life is that you don't have conversations with 100s of people simultaneously in real life due to the practicality of speaking vs. typing. If you could, it would look like here as well.

 

[jesse]

Ever been on Nextdoor?

It's a social media site where you know the name and address of everybody, and everybody lives within a few miles of each other. It's probably the least anonymous site you can ever get on, and yet, some of the discussions on there would put spinzone to shame.

There was also this study that showed that internet trolls are real life trolls as well:
https://www.theguardian.com/science.../25/internet-trolls-are-also-real-life-trolls


So unfortunately no - people don't just turn into ***holes when they get online. They're like that all the time.

I think the reason you don't see this translate into real life is that you don't have conversations with 100s of people simultaneously in real life due to the practicality of speaking vs. typing. If you could, it would look like here as well.

Most of the tough guys we've had problems with on this forum I've met in person as well. In person - they may be thinking troll things - but they don't say them. Difference in real life is the very real chance that a troll can catch a fist to the face.

 

[Everskyward]

Ever been on Nextdoor?

It's a social media site where you know the name and address of everybody, and everybody lives within a few miles of each other. It's probably the least anonymous site you can ever get on, and yet, some of the discussions on there would put spinzone to shame.

Really? I've been on Nextdoor in a semi-rural neighborhood and also, recently, one in a city. I don't find that to be the case at all.

 

[Palmpilot]

...So unfortunately no - people don't just turn into ***holes when they get online. They're like that all the time....

I think it depends on the individual.

 

[deonb]

Really? I've been on Nextdoor in a semi-rural neighborhood and also, recently, one in a city. I don't find that to be the case at all.

Start a discussion about creating a 'Safe injection site' in your neighborhood, or local police enforcing federal laws without federal funding, or whether coyote's should be culled.

 

[JOhnH]

Start a discussion about creating a 'Safe injection site' in your neighborhood, or local police enforcing federal laws without federal funding, or whether coyote's should be culled.

In other words, troll for strong reactions.

 

[deonb]

In other words, troll for strong reactions.

Sure, but it's just a discussion of what's happening in the neighborhood. There is indeed a 'safe injection site' opening up. The police did say they're not enforcing federal-only laws. And an old lady saw a coyote walking across the street.

 

[Everskyward]

LOL, coyotes are in the news here in the city, especially since one recently snatched a small dog from off a porch. City folk seem more afraid of coyotes than country folk, however, even city folk know that you can't eradicate coyotes. More will move in. No heated discussion in that thread. I just checked.

 

[denverpilot]

LOL, coyotes are in the news here in the city, especially since one recently snatched a small dog from off a porch. City folk seem more afraid of coyotes than country folk, however, even city folk know that you can't eradicate coyotes. More will move in. No heated discussion in that thread. I just checked.

If you suggest a coyote shoot as a good wholesome weekend activity, you'd probably get some folks riled. Lol. "Bring the kids!"

 

[Everskyward]

If you suggest a coyote shoot as a good wholesome weekend activity, you'd probably get some folks riled. Lol. "Bring the kids!"

No way I would suggest that at my old home or my new one, because of the density of population in both places, plus what I wrote about it doing no good. Besides I know enough not to troll.

 

[Half Fast]

Suggesting that around here would bring out most of the neighbors, and we'd probably hold a potluck BBQ dinner afterward. Lots of trouble with coyotes killing new calves and dogs.

 

[Skyrys62]

Unlike Playboy which I subscribe to because I only like to read the articles, I only subscribe to AOPA because I like to look at the pictures.

 

[denverpilot]

No way I would suggest that at my old home or my new one, because of the density of population in both places, plus what I wrote about it doing no good. Besides I know enough not to troll.

Nah, trolling would be telling everyone that there's numerous agencies that already have permits to shoot them in those neighborhoods that keep their permits quiet in order not to bother the whiners. Because the do. Both have be permit and shoot them regularly. They try hazing first but when that fails, the rifle comes out.

 

[Everskyward]

Nah, trolling would be telling everyone that there's numerous agencies that already have permits to shoot them in those neighborhoods that keep their permits quiet in order not to bother the whiners. Because the do. Both have be permit and shoot them regularly. They try hazing first but when that fails, the rifle comes out.

They couldn't shoot them in my old neighborhood, and most likely not in my new one either.

 

[denverpilot]

They couldn't shoot them in my old neighborhood, and most likely not in my new one either.

Why do you say that? I'm not making it up. Talking about government agencies, not citizens. The sheriff wanted to shoot something in your old neighborhood, they would. Plus a handful of other agencies so licensed.

And not just "out here". I know of three agencies that were licensed to shoot whatever they wanted to shoot a block from my city house in the greenbelt. And they did. Quietly. Usually early AM and with suppressed rifles to keep the PR problem away.

Your old worksite shoots a few coyotes every year too. Legally. When the lights and sirens on the ops trucks don't work.

They just don't talk about it much.

 

[Skyrys62]

We fill coyote dummies with tannerite and dump female coyote urine on them.
One good shot takes out about 4 horny males minimum.

kidding...but hey it's an idea.
Could almost do something similar when your daughters start dating.

 

[RogerT]

I thought we got rid of political discussion because of the tone they were taking. Now we have thinly disguised
attacks on the 2nd Amendment .. and that's ok?